Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Lamest. Argument. Ever.

Quoth Amanda Marcotte:

Anti-choicers like to defend themselves against the charge of misogyny by saying they simply believe that life begins at conception. What they fail to understand is that “life begins at conception” is a misogynist statement. It’s the erasure of a woman’s role in making new people, and a claim that the only effort that counts is the effort a man put into ejaculating.

Gosh, where to begin?

JivinJ manfully (pun intended) analyzes her argument here.

One might add that according to Marcotte's characterization, those of us who believe acknowledge that life begins at conception would also be bound to hold that sperm-egg union is absolutely necessary for a new life to come into existence.

Only we don't.

Cloning, anyone?

While we certainly believe, morally speaking, that human beings should not be cloned, a cloned human being is still a human being, despite the fact that his existence came about not by conception — i.e., fertilization, i.e., sperm-egg union — but rather by a process that merely mimics it.

And ironically, since it requires no sperm, cloning truly poses the "erasure of a [man's] role in making new people".

No comments: